9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1590X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the Bench with regard to filing electronically audit report in the subsequent years, it was stated that the assessee is regularly submitting the same and there was no fault in any subsequent year. It is also observed that the assessee was getting his accounts audited well in time regularly since last three years. The audit for the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration was completed on 24/09/2013 in time and the assessee submitted its return on 28/09/2013. Therefore, in my considered view, the default on the part of the assessee was a bonafide human mistake. There was no dishonest attempt to break the law. Thus penalty need to be deleted - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 944/JP/2016 - - - Dated:- 27-12-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... longwith the return of income. The provisions in Rule 12(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (in short the Rules) were effective from 01/4/2013. The auditor of the assessee Mr. Aditya Kumar Rawat (CA) completed the audit on 24/09/2013 and filed the return on 28/09/2013. The date of the audit report was also filled in the ITR-4 form. However, the auditor skipped the electronic filing of the audit report. Since this was the first year of the provisions and the auditor has himself accepted the mistake on his part, therefore, the assessee should not have been penalized by levying the penalty U/s 271B of the Act when the accounts were audited well in time, but due to human bonafide mistake, the uploading of audit report skipped the attention of aud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was no fault in any subsequent year. It is also observed that the assessee was getting his accounts audited well in time regularly since last three years. The audit for the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration was completed on 24/09/2013 in time and the assessee submitted its return on 28/09/2013. Therefore, in my considered view, the default on the part of the assessee was a bonafide human mistake. There was no dishonest attempt to break the law. Considering the various case laws as mentioned below, I direct to delete the penalty levied U/s 271B of the Act. (i) Chandra Pal Bagga Vs. ITAT 261 ITR 67 (Raj). (ii) Raj State Electricity Board Vs. ITAT (2003) 130 Taxman 840 (Raj). (iii) CIT Vs UP Rajya Sahka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
